Quote:
Originally Posted by SaminNC
I'm not sure why all opposition on this forum is grouped into some tea party stereotype. It's like you guys refuse to acknowledge that this law screws some people, primarily families that don't qualify for subsidies or didn't have access to group plans, high deductible privately purchased insurance was the EV play for people that were healthy and could put together the deductible if needed. The private insurance market was dominated by entrepreneurs who make the American economy run, don't even get me started on the business mandates coming up.
Sorry about your uncle, I do believe he should have access to healthcare but why is the law carried on the back of the middle class? You want suzzer's uncle to **** off and die. That is your position on the issue of the poor and the otherwise uninsurable.
No, Sam, you don't. There's no reason to humor you and pretend you're like some sincerely interested good person who just happens to quibble with the methods.
Quote:
I guess you are ok with my hypothetical healthy guy paying $300-$1,000 more a month for coverage he doesn't need or want so the poor and sick are a safe bet for the insurance companies? Taking those funds from the productive and healthy is worth it?
See, Sammy, when you ask questions like the bolded you give away the game.
The answer to your question is quite simple. Yes. Absolutely. That's the ****ing bedrock principle of the social contract, so yeah.
Sam, what is your plan to provide suzzer's uncle access to health care? Obama ran on expanding coverage 7 years ago, so you've had the better part of a decade to come up with something.
No, us Tea Party stereotypes know Obama and those liberals at the Heritage Institute hate success so they went with the exchange/mandate/subsidy model to punish the middle class, so feel free to fill everyone in on the non zero-sum superior entrepreneur friendly plan:
_____________________________________
We'll wait.